Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO, said issues like climate change, energy dependence and oil/gas drilling are blown out of proportion. He blames a lazy press, illiterate public and fear-mongering advocacy groups for the bad light placed on the oil industry.

Climate change is a controversial topic that has been subjected to much debate. Tillerson said that fossil fuels may cause global warming, but argued that humans can easily adapt to the warmer climate. More specifically, he said that humans can adapt to rising sea levels and climate changes because he doubts the validity of climate modeling, which predicts the magnitude of impact associated with climate change.

"We have spent our entire existence adapting," said Tillerson. "We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."

Others, however, disagree with Tillerson's assessment. Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling and analysis at Canada's University of Victoria, said that adapting to climate change would be much harder than just preventing it in the first place.

In addition, adapting to climate change could be much more expensive than preventing it. According to Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," adapting to climate change would require moving entire cities. A better alternative would be legislation that slows the process of global warming.

An example of such a measure is the proposed fuel standards for 2017-2025, which will require automakers to create vehicles capable of 54.5 MPG by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil. These standards will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012. Such measures could hit ExxonMobil's wallet with less gas used.

Tillerson also addressed the topic of consequences related to oil/gas drilling techniques, saying that drilling will always present possible risks like spills and accidents. But he mentioned that such risks are manageable and worth the end result, which is the energy provided.

Tillerson also said that drilling in shale formations doesn't pose life-threatening risks to those living nearby. However, drilling mixes millions of gallons of water with sand and chemicals that creates drilling wastewater. If this water is not treated, it can contaminate drinking water through cracked drilling pipes.

Tillerson also mentioned his problem with views on oil dependency. He said that there will always be access to oil, and that it doesn't matter where the U.S. gets oil because it is priced globally. Tillerson added that the U.S. only receiving oil from North America would still increase gas prices in the U.S. because it would cause a "disruption" in the Middle East.

Why don't the 99% people understand math? CEO pay is not keeping down average salaries by any meaningful amount.

Lets do the math!

ExxonMobil employees roughly 83,600 people. So say he only makes 10 times the average, and that average is say 50k (I think its probably more like 68k for Exxon, but lets use 50 since its closer to the national), then his salary is at $500,000, that means $24,700,000 would then be divided up communist style among the 83,599 other employees right? So they would make a whopping $295.45 more each year. Which is not even a 0.7% raise for an employee at 50,000 a year.

What ExxonMobil's CEO makes should be what ExxonMobil is happy paying him and he is willing to take. They are free to set his salary and he is free to take it or walk away. Why do you hate Freedom?

I'm sure nobody in their right mind would accept such a gift. Far better to receive $0 instead. An ironclad argument, if ever I've encountered one.

quote: Lets do the math!

Let's do the math another way. By saving $22,200,000 per year, in 10 years the company accumulates an extra $220,000,000 in cash. It can either sit on it earning interest, or re-invest it to grow the business. Either way, shareholders win (ironically, are CEOs also usually among the major shareholders -- so really that's a win-win.)

But we all know that under your construction of "Freedom", the interests of shareholders are subordinate to those of the CEO. After all, public companies like ExxonMobil are not under any such governance as Fiduciary Duty -- right? Right....

Let me ask you a question in turn: why do YOU hate Freedom? Why do you pine for a comeback of Feudalism? (where CEOs are the new Barons, and the 99% are their Serfs?) Because absent strong organized labor or some government-orchestrated wealth redistribution scheme, Feudalism is exactly where your deregulated "free market" utopia winds up when carried out to its logical conclusion. (And no, wealth doesn't "trickle down". And if you ever feel that trickle impacting your head from on high, don't let them tell you it's raining, either...)

quote: After all, public companies like ExxonMobil are not under any such governance as Fiduciary Duty -- right?

I don't understand. If the board and shareholders are happy with the CEO's pay (afterall they approved it), then what's your point? Did the CEO get paid an amount the shareholders and the board didn't approve? How did this CEO actually collect an unapproved paycheck?

My point is that the board and shareholders are being stupid -- at best (and this is far from the only exhibit demonstrating the case.)

And yes, the market can indeed be stupid, inefficient, corrupt, and utterly irrational. I hope you won't force me to dredge up the innumerable examples from the last, oh, 15 years of financial headlines to prove that point. Or from the past few months, for that matter...

My main point here is that stupidity and corruption will continue and even escalate, in a climate where everyone either ignores it or acquiesces to it.

Personally, I have no problem with calling it as I see it at every opportunity. Not that I'm going to change the world by posting rants in some little forum. But at least I personally won't be actively contributing to the problem of malignant neglect, thank you very much.

quote: Personally, I have no problem with calling it as I see it at every opportunity.

I don't have a problem with this actually. I do fail to see how this is my concern though. If the pay is too exorbitant or not based on the market then that company fails and is replaced by another one. I would be concerned about the jobs lost but since oil demand is huge some other company will just come in and buy up all of the equipment and rehire most of the employees to run it. In reality, considering oil company profits, I highly doubt CEO pay will be the thing that brings down these companies so I'm not concerned in the least.

quote: But at least I personally won't be actively contributing to the problem of malignant neglect, thank you very much.

Just a question, but do you have a 401K or other retirement plan? If so is there any Exxon Mobile stock owned at part of that plan? If so then you are actively contributing to that problem by being one that must be paid from the profits of the oil company, and supporting the oil company through purchase of that stock.

Most people never know what companies they have invested in through their retirement accounts.

My idea of freedom is that if ExxonMobil wants this guy as CEO, they were free to pay him what they feel they should. It can be a bad decision it could be a good decision, they are free to make it. And the Shareholders are free to push for change or sell out of the company.

Anyone who thinks a free market would create a Feudal society spends way too much time reading propaganda and never picked up a history book. Feudal Society was based around the Land, called a Fief, which was held by the Nobility, because of the favor of their King. Serfs who lived on a fief were often forced to work for the Lord of that fief.

A free market society would not have lords, or kings, or fiefs. You would have land that would be bought and sold freely by the people for what they decide. A free market worker does so because they are willing to accept the payment offered, not because they are compelled to under the law. That worker might have to accept an offer that is poor due to his/her circumstances but they are free to look for a better one or try and come to a better arrangement.

You are just jealous communist wanting a society that you think you would do better in, but in reality everyone would do worse.

quote: Feudal Society was based around the Land, called a Fief, which was held by the Nobility, because of the favor of their King.

Is the supply of high-quality land unlimited or limited (particularly around major metropolises where people tend to congregate)? What happens in a society with exponentially widening income and wealth disparities between the gilded oligarchy and the plebes? The gilded oligarchy eventually winds up owning all of the valuable land, and all of the productive assets. The plebes wind up renting property and buying services from the elite. The owners get ever wealthier. The renters asymptotically approach the status of household slaves. The stable end-state of this evolution is Feudalism by any other name (even if not originally established by a King's edict.)

quote: A free market society would not have lords, or kings, or fiefs.

In the United States, the society was firmly on that exact trajectory during the early 20th century (the so-called Gilded Age.) It was averted by vigorous federal monopoly- and trust-busting efforts, strong organized labor movements, and eventually government-driven wealth redistribution and public utilities/infrastructure investments (the New Deal). For a few decades, America had a growing Middle Class, and prospered. But then economic "liberalization" began, the income/wealth gaps started to blow out, and the middle class started to shrink, even as personal, corporate, and national debts escalated exponentially. That's still going on even today. Left on that trajectory, we'll find ourselves back to the good-old days before long, and beyond.

But not much farther beyond, I suspect. Societies eventually reach a point when the 99% finally realizes it has been transfixed by a fictional "dream" even while being serially raped by the "captains of industry" for decades on end. Then things can turn real ugly, real fast for the financial elites -- even up to the sort of extremes that Russia experienced in the first 2 decades of last century...

Personally, I'd rather not have my country go through such duress. But maybe it's inevitable...

quote: I'm sure nobody in their right mind would accept such a gift. Far better to receive $0 instead. An ironclad argument, if ever I've encountered one.

Nice to see you trying to incorporate sarcasm into your responses...bonus points for having the sarcasm be true when levied against your own comments.

quote: Let's do the math another way. By saving $22,200,000 per year, in 10 years the company accumulates an extra $220,000,000 in cash. It can either sit on it earning interest, or re-invest it to grow the business. Either way, shareholders win (ironically, are CEOs also usually among the major shareholders -- so really that's a win-win.)

Really man, why AREN'T you on the cover of Forbes. Dishing out financial wisdom like this for free?! I feel so lucky to be able to share the same thread with a genius like you!

You hear that, Exxon? Stop paying your CEO and instead put his salary in the bank and let it collect 0.3% interest per year. Ignore the fact that in 2011 the rate of inflation for the US Dollar was 3% and so far in 2012 it is up to 1.7% - SIT on that money. That's the smart play here.

quote: Let me ask you a question in turn: why do YOU hate Freedom? Why do you pine for a comeback of Feudalism?

Look at this guy go. He took your question and instead of answering it, he asked it back to you. That's a hallmark of intelligent debate.

What idiot actually expect wealth to "trickle down"? If you want to get rich DO IT and stop expecting someone else to do it for you. You obviously can't...and between this and your other comments I think you've managed to answer my question: What's holding you back from making $25 million? You're just too damm stupid.

Even just sitting on that money is a smarter investment than simply gifting it to some overpaid douche bag at the top of the pyramid. Of course, smarter managers would try to invest or reinvest as a first priority, or at least if no good investment opportunities are evident, share the company's profits more evenly across the company's work force and/or shareholders.

quote: That's a hallmark of intelligent debate.

As opposed to lobbing wife-beater insinuations (such as "why do you hate Freedom"?)

quote: What idiot actually expect wealth to "trickle down"?

One such idiot's name was Ronald Reagan. One Richard Cheney was another such idiot of notable prominence, up to quite recently even...

quote: You're just too damm stupid.

Yes, that must be it.

OTOH, in my experience the higher you move up a corporate hierarchy, the more you find yourself competing against unscrupulous manipulators and ladder climbers who have no problem lying, cheating, and stepping on the necks of their colleagues if it gets them up to the next rung. I will never be one of those people. I'm not sufficiently sociopathic... And I'm just fine with that.

quote: Even just sitting on that money is a smarter investment than simply gifting it to some overpaid douche bag at the top of the pyramid. Of course, smarter managers would try to invest or reinvest as a first priority, or at least if no good investment opportunities are evident, share the company's profits more evenly across the company's work force and/or shareholders.

Yeah man, losing 2.7% per year and accomplishing nothing is smarter than reinvesting it or paying it to someone who will use it to fund other projects.

People who earn $25 million or more per year tend to be much more productive members of society since their money is always doing something, something like creating decent jobs and opportunities for people. You don't get to that kind of level without taking risks, unless you're born into it...but even if you start out on top, being on top isn't the hard part - it's staying there that is the real challenge.

The pool of people qualified to run a company like ExxonMobil isn't exactly overflowing and the pay reflects that. Your notion that pay should simply be "profit divided by number of employees" is purely asinine - employees are assets and assets have a "market value". The market value of a "hard working floor sweeper" is lower than that of a somewhat-lazy but efficient software coder. That's why people earn what they're worth.

Nothing should ever be given away to someone in business. If you want to get a head you make the necessary connections and take the right steps to get there...but you and people like you, who just want to whine that it's not fair, really should consider relocating to Sweden - the ultimate welfare state.

quote: As opposed to lobbing wife-beater insinuations

That really has no context at all in this discussion...but if I was as dumb as you are I'd probably be living in a trailer with a wife I beat after I get mad that I lost the daily lottery again.

Oh, did this just get too real for you? I hope I didn't hit too close to home.

quote: One such idiot's name was Ronald Reagan. One Richard Cheney was another such idiot of notable prominence, up to quite recently even.

Trickle down economics doesn't work because poor people are poor due to them being fck1ing morons, not because a lack of availability of money. They are given opportunity after opportunity to better themselves, but they do not because they are not much more evolved than the chimps you see at the zoo.

Also, it would be bad for democrats if the poverty level dropped below 10% because they'd lose the majority of their voter base and risk being ousted from government altogether...that's why democrats are often happy to keep these social parasites on the welfare treadmill at the expense of anyone who works or runs a business - aka not you.

quote: Yes, that must be it.

OTOH, in my experience the higher you move up a corporate hierarchy, the more you find yourself competing against unscrupulous manipulators and ladder climbers who have no problem lying, cheating, and stepping on the necks of their colleagues if it gets them up to the next rung. I will never be one of those people. I'm not sufficiently sociopathic... And I'm just fine with that.

How about you?

You don't know what you are capable of if you don't try. You're already comfortable spreading lies about the state of our planet and the fraudulent science pushing their eco-terror agenda on a public forum...are you mad that you're not getting paid for it?

The sweet irony here is that your likely champions and heroes, greenpeace, those whale humpers, obama...all earn millions of dollars by duping people like you into becoming one of their acolytes.

You should be, if you knew what's good for you . Oddly, you appear to suffer from a strange case of altruism in this specific case, despite otherwise hewing closely to the patently dysfunctional philosophy of "greed is good".

quote: You don't know how much I make.

And you don't know how much I make. But at least I won't prance around here coyly pretending that I'm anywhere close to the same ballpark as the overpaid douche bag in question.

quote: you may as well just stop posting.

Well, at least on that point you're right. I've spent more than enough time on this discussion, particularly with the likes of you. Cheers!